Archive #12 Messages from June 2, 2012 - end of 2012.
Hey. I didnt link it to nanoparticle gold because it is not colloidal gold. It is a thin film produced in an evaporator. It is for thickness tests in electronics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwchalmers ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey.
I explained this to Jasper. Actually what you are looking at is NOT colloidal gold. It is a 30nm thin film produced in an evaporator in high vacuum. Gold nano-particles (colloidal gold), are produced chemically, usually in some type of suspension.
Also, in the case of a thin film, you get the same transmission spectra regardless of thickness (unless it becomes so thick that the film is opaque e.g. full attenuation). The transmission spectrum is essentially the INVERSE of the reflection specturm you get when you see bulk gold. It is a driect way of observing the color properties of bulk gold.
Thats why I took out the edits to colloidal gold. It is misleading because what is shown is absolutely not collodial gold (I made the film myself). The thin film has none of the cool properties that colloidal gold has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwchalmers ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Process guide is up for all to see. Different image up too (same peice) because of the comments of materialsci.
Mwchalmers ( talk) 02:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Golden Medal of Science Barnstar |
Thank you for your many efforts to your many contributions about the life of knowledge and mystery for science and believing the many quantities and phases of possibilities and discovery for ongoing science seekers, including me, -- GoShow ( ...............) 05:58, 5 June 2012 |
Why thank you for that. 30,000 edits over 6 years, more than half in the sciences. And, yet, this may be my first barnstar ever on WP. And it must be a sincere one, free of vaseline or lipbalm, since I have absolutely nothing to do with wikipolitics. Ghosh! S B H arris 06:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the too aggresive archive done by another editor. Unfortunately your edit got caught in the revert. Do you want to remake it? I apologize for the inconvenience. -- NeilN talk to me 01:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.
But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/
The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?
I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The objective vs. subjective part comes the sorities paradox where a mere qualitative change becomes a qualitative change. Usually this is because of physiology-- at some temperature a thing goes from warm to HOT! and you get pain where you didn't before. In other cases you exceed a threshhold in human observation power like ability to measure a half live longer than x, and nuclides with longer half lives than that, we call "stable". Of the 255 of these, there are only 90 that are energetically stable. You can see that everything about Nb-41 can fission-- we just haven't seen it. The 6 log disagreement about Xe-136 moves it from a qualitative class to another-- it's not "just" a number thing. When Bi-209 was found radioactive, that was a big thing. It does no good at all you say that Pb-208 is probably radioactive also. We must go by what we have measured, to some extent, in case our theories are wrong.
2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [2] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.
3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? S B H arris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You only have about 1100 edits (about 3% of mine), and 20% of what you've done is distribed equally to just two articles-- Noble metal and List of nuclides. [4]. That's too much. You need to diversify and avoid that feeling of ownership. And read WP:OWN. It helps. S B H arris 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris, I think Decompression (diving) is up to A-class, Please take a look if you have the time and comment on article talk page. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ZaprudTV.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The activities of Sebastio Venturi are being discussed here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
They are allowed until 2020 in the developed world and 2030 in the undeveloped. They are about 50% of the refrigerant market. The article's body is also clear that they have a partial ozone damaging effect (about one tenth as serious as CFCs). When you edited the lead to add the nuance about ozone damaging, you made a false statement about HCFCs being banned. I will straighten it out and attempt to appease you, although really it was fine before. TCO ( talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi -- I looked at the backyard photos again more closely, and it does appear that you are right! In CE133B and C, the rifle is always facing generally trigger-guard forward (which is more natural). So in fact the photos are consistent with the sling being attached to the left side as you are firing. Cdg1072 ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, changing staes without explanation is a common form of vandalism, so you're gong to need to provide a citation for your change in 1915 to 1916 in this article. As always, when I fact is disputed, it is incumbent on the person who wished to include the fact to provide a citation from a reliable source when challenged. I'd appreciate it if you'd so so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to Fat Man at least for the time being. You asserted (without reference) in putting that image and caption in that the Slotin assembly was the same size as the Fat Man core. I know of no sources that say that. The detailed writeups I saw indicated a clear understanding that the components involved, Be hemispheres and core, were sized for experimental purposes and not to match any Fat Man dimensions.
If you have a source that the Slotin accident assembly was in fact Fat Man sized particularly, please provide it...
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So far as the rest, look at the Slotin recreation. Those are a bunch of not-very-clean crates and an empty coke bottle in 1946. (Drinking coke in a rad lab?!) Not a lot of money is being spent here. It's not a clean-lab with white coats-- it's the way things were in 1946. If you think people would have specially made replacement things to replace off-the shelf multiply-produced bomb components, you're dreaming. You can SEE the outer pieces are the same sizes, to within your ability to disciminate. And we know the core was the standard 6.2 kg Pu core. They didn't use a uranium tamper, since it wasn't needed for this experiment. So it was replaced by a Be reflector. But there was certainly no reason not to use everything else, just as it was in the bomb, and that includes the large outer aluminum sphere. What metal DO you think that's made of? Not beryllium. S B H arris 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Your intuition is starting to look very bad here. We've already established that it's the same Pu core, and that the "tamper shell" size is the same as in Fat Man (though the material is changed). And the smaller sphere we know is beryllium doesn't look like the same metal as the larger sphere, which looks very much like aluminum (what's in Fat Man). It has that same pure-white with no cast that very few metals other than Al are. Nickel is off-color as it's a bit yellow. Beryllium doesn't have that look. It's certainly not nickel-plated uranium, as a uranium hemisphere that size (something like 18 inches in diameter) would weigh at least several tons.
There's even a natural explanation for why the 8.75 U tamper is a quarter-inch thinner than the 9 inch Be reflector made to stand in its place for this experiment: the missing 1/4" is the thin boron plastic liner that was being omitted from Fat Man bombs by 1946. Probably the hole in the outer (largest) aluminum pusher was always exactly 9 inches in diameter. S B H arris 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In this thread I have twice felt the need to raise civility concerns with you [5] [6]. Nevertheless, your attacks and insinuations have continued unabated and have become increasingly personal [7]. I refuse to be bullied away from editing this page of high importance to WikiProject Medicine. — MistyMorn ( talk) 10:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Various attacks and incivility levelled at
User:MistyMorn. See: [
attacks by User:Sbharris
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It was an unfortunate situation, and I would also implicate MistyMom in the escalation on the Talk page. In any case, I've come across your contributions and comments in the past and have been quite impressed. I'm sorry to see you leave that article. I do hope you'll keep an eye on it, and if anything needs to be addressed in it, and if you don't feel comfortable getting involved there, perhaps leave a note on my Talk page or send me an email, and I will see if I can address whatever concern you have. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, do realize that much of the RfA stuff involves brownnosing or at least wooing a certain electorate, so don't expect sympathy on ANI. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As to the editors who came out of the woodwork in behalf of this one on AN/I, ye gods. As you suggest, I seem indeed to have hit some interlocking clique of some sort. For example I don't think I would ever agree to having my photo taken by Shankbone Miller [8] (see the Israeli ambassador hanging with the porn king?) but tastes clearly vary (although the ambassador did redact himself later). So I'm just going to stay as far away from this fubar, as I possibly can. S B H arris 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: [9]: Sorry, but I did. There's no mention of this idea anywhere else in the article. There is discussion of mutualism, but not about humans expressing "love by touching their hairy scalps together". The claim was made as a caption to a photo, without a citation to back it up. Thank you for providing a cite to back it up. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was very interested in your comments at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Incivility vs. IP vandalism, and I have made a response there to one of your points. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The laws of thermodynamics: Zeroth: You must play the game. First: You can't win. Second: You can't break even. Third: You can't quit the game. Cheers! :-D -- 186.32.17.47 ( talk) 05:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is _not_ an interpretation: it is a _joke_. As an interpretion it would be completely flawed. The "zeroth law" is sometimes regarded as an "afterthought". "If A and C are each in thermal equilibrium with B, A is also in equilibrium with C." I have always thought that, since it defines a basic aspect of temperature in order to properly define thermal equilibrium it was dubbed "zeroth law" because there was already a first law, and because it is not a "physical law" but a required definition. I had never thought about a reference to 0K; it sounds "amusing", although it seems to me that the third law has more to do with "0K" than the zeroth. I've also seen it as "Zeroth: There is a game". -- 201.204.200.18 ( talk) 23:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I did have this old account that I stopped using because I did not see the point. Me being the user that has being talking to you through IP addresses on thermodynamic systems. I'm usually not logged in when I browse the wiki and usually I forget or don't to sign in. I was surprised that the account still existed. I did extensive work on some martial arts systems that I am involved in and it was wiped out by some editors or something so I do not care to work for nothing. -- Crio ( talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) The article in question was on the Genbukan system. Since Shoto Tanemura Et.al. claim a connection of sorts to ancient Ninpo: an unsubstantiated claim (in as much as their connection lacks third party sources). But the system _does_ exist and is notable, even if Genbukan involves unsubstantiated claims. The article was being redone that way by different people here and it got wiped out, even though the unsubtantiated claims _were_ established as such and third party info on what Genbukan is and it being a world wide school or system of martial arts. i.e. the Bujinkan school does have it's won page and it's creator Masaaki Hatsumi does too: this is a competing school. But Genbukan and Shoto Tanemura are systematically wiped out from wiki. -- Crio ( talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
...the only way of quitting is through dead? ... heat dead? .... LOL!-- Crio ( talk) 22:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (all in jolly good fun!).
Re your interaction with the MEDRS community, I am guessing that many editors there do not even know what the word "epistemology" means. You seem to be making at least one point that is the same as that in my own mind, that standards of WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable are not sufficiently critically looked at, nor consistently applied, and therefore the inconsistency makes editing alternative medicine articles difficult, and makes a truly legitimate encyclopedia article on psychiatry and related articles difficult to write. I just wanted to let you know that if I am not commenting on good points you make in your posts over there, it is because I think that some lighter-weight thinking editors (who may have other cognitive skills you or I do not) view your comments without actually thinking about them, mainly based on their length. So my responding to your comments would only make the amount of reading they are already loathe to do more unlikely. ParkSehJik ( talk) 19:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the old problem with dictionary definitions: are they meant to be reflective of usage by the population, or are the meant to be prescriptive, to be imposed top-down by language experts, upon the common man? And is DSM more like a dictionary for psychiatrists, or more like IUPAC or ISO that set standards for names for chemists and technologists? DSM has often been called the "bible of psychiatry" and far too often, that's exactly how it's used. The protestant minority being chronically subjected to some new inquisition, or even a Thirty Years' War every time a new one is produced. S B H arris 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The "reality" of some of psychiatry's categories is somewhat related to mathematical realism's and Frege or Popper's "second world", with mathematical objects being in the third world, and the physical world being the first, borrowing our expression, "ISO reality". Further on these lines is that by defining categories mathematically, and at the same time looking for biological bases for the presumed to be real categories, epistemology and ontology of psychiatry becomes a festering sore on theories of abstract objects and of reality. That is related to a talk page section I started here Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler), (or to a music band without a Wiki page per Google) ?, where each editor seemed to weigh in with a different position, leaving any possible consensus in the dust.
My measure of "nice" for analyses is that what you wrote seems almost obvious. I like the DSM as "dictionary" idea. I have been using "cookbook" for DSM off Wiki. It is essentially a flow chart to be followed like a recipe, without critical thought, without indication as to which recipes are well and which pooorly founded in scientific evidence, without indication as to whether anything ties the recipe to an actual "disease" or just to a somewhat measurable mental category and an arbitrary deviation from a norm called "disease", and with all the bad stuff and nonsense in it well-known by and zeroed in on by forensic psychiatrists, hired to find the nonsense parts for use in getting $500/hr by whichever side calls them in partisan legal disputes, and the cases being a near certainty for anyone who is unlucky enought to live to a ripe old age, and still retain their money and freedom. There is good RS for the evolution of witch trials into forensic psychiary trials, but I am not going to get into a war trying to put it in articles. What I was surprised not to have been able to find RS on, is the bifold problem of people viewing any criticism of psychiatry as a potential attack on their drug dealer, and the semi-religious reverence so many have, especially MDs, for psychiatry, with views that any pointing to problems is like an attack on their religion. The most highly critical people I know are all big shots in psychiatry, not outside it. I had never even heard of the "antipscyhiatry movement" until I read about it in the Wiki article last week. They would probably be best served by calling themselves "the pro-EBM-psychiatry movement", unless they are actually nutcases who really are antipsychiatry for some reason. ParkSehJik ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still watching this page, but I posted a question at Talk:Rutherford_scattering#Infinite_density_at_.CE.98.3D0.3F that I thought you might be able to help with. Thanks, Λυδ α cιτγ 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Archive #12 Messages from June 2, 2012 - end of 2012.
Hey. I didnt link it to nanoparticle gold because it is not colloidal gold. It is a thin film produced in an evaporator. It is for thickness tests in electronics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwchalmers ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey.
I explained this to Jasper. Actually what you are looking at is NOT colloidal gold. It is a 30nm thin film produced in an evaporator in high vacuum. Gold nano-particles (colloidal gold), are produced chemically, usually in some type of suspension.
Also, in the case of a thin film, you get the same transmission spectra regardless of thickness (unless it becomes so thick that the film is opaque e.g. full attenuation). The transmission spectrum is essentially the INVERSE of the reflection specturm you get when you see bulk gold. It is a driect way of observing the color properties of bulk gold.
Thats why I took out the edits to colloidal gold. It is misleading because what is shown is absolutely not collodial gold (I made the film myself). The thin film has none of the cool properties that colloidal gold has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwchalmers ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Process guide is up for all to see. Different image up too (same peice) because of the comments of materialsci.
Mwchalmers ( talk) 02:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Golden Medal of Science Barnstar |
Thank you for your many efforts to your many contributions about the life of knowledge and mystery for science and believing the many quantities and phases of possibilities and discovery for ongoing science seekers, including me, -- GoShow ( ...............) 05:58, 5 June 2012 |
Why thank you for that. 30,000 edits over 6 years, more than half in the sciences. And, yet, this may be my first barnstar ever on WP. And it must be a sincere one, free of vaseline or lipbalm, since I have absolutely nothing to do with wikipolitics. Ghosh! S B H arris 06:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the too aggresive archive done by another editor. Unfortunately your edit got caught in the revert. Do you want to remake it? I apologize for the inconvenience. -- NeilN talk to me 01:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.
But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/
The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?
I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The objective vs. subjective part comes the sorities paradox where a mere qualitative change becomes a qualitative change. Usually this is because of physiology-- at some temperature a thing goes from warm to HOT! and you get pain where you didn't before. In other cases you exceed a threshhold in human observation power like ability to measure a half live longer than x, and nuclides with longer half lives than that, we call "stable". Of the 255 of these, there are only 90 that are energetically stable. You can see that everything about Nb-41 can fission-- we just haven't seen it. The 6 log disagreement about Xe-136 moves it from a qualitative class to another-- it's not "just" a number thing. When Bi-209 was found radioactive, that was a big thing. It does no good at all you say that Pb-208 is probably radioactive also. We must go by what we have measured, to some extent, in case our theories are wrong.
2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [2] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.
3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? S B H arris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You only have about 1100 edits (about 3% of mine), and 20% of what you've done is distribed equally to just two articles-- Noble metal and List of nuclides. [4]. That's too much. You need to diversify and avoid that feeling of ownership. And read WP:OWN. It helps. S B H arris 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris, I think Decompression (diving) is up to A-class, Please take a look if you have the time and comment on article talk page. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ZaprudTV.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The activities of Sebastio Venturi are being discussed here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
They are allowed until 2020 in the developed world and 2030 in the undeveloped. They are about 50% of the refrigerant market. The article's body is also clear that they have a partial ozone damaging effect (about one tenth as serious as CFCs). When you edited the lead to add the nuance about ozone damaging, you made a false statement about HCFCs being banned. I will straighten it out and attempt to appease you, although really it was fine before. TCO ( talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi -- I looked at the backyard photos again more closely, and it does appear that you are right! In CE133B and C, the rifle is always facing generally trigger-guard forward (which is more natural). So in fact the photos are consistent with the sling being attached to the left side as you are firing. Cdg1072 ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, changing staes without explanation is a common form of vandalism, so you're gong to need to provide a citation for your change in 1915 to 1916 in this article. As always, when I fact is disputed, it is incumbent on the person who wished to include the fact to provide a citation from a reliable source when challenged. I'd appreciate it if you'd so so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to Fat Man at least for the time being. You asserted (without reference) in putting that image and caption in that the Slotin assembly was the same size as the Fat Man core. I know of no sources that say that. The detailed writeups I saw indicated a clear understanding that the components involved, Be hemispheres and core, were sized for experimental purposes and not to match any Fat Man dimensions.
If you have a source that the Slotin accident assembly was in fact Fat Man sized particularly, please provide it...
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So far as the rest, look at the Slotin recreation. Those are a bunch of not-very-clean crates and an empty coke bottle in 1946. (Drinking coke in a rad lab?!) Not a lot of money is being spent here. It's not a clean-lab with white coats-- it's the way things were in 1946. If you think people would have specially made replacement things to replace off-the shelf multiply-produced bomb components, you're dreaming. You can SEE the outer pieces are the same sizes, to within your ability to disciminate. And we know the core was the standard 6.2 kg Pu core. They didn't use a uranium tamper, since it wasn't needed for this experiment. So it was replaced by a Be reflector. But there was certainly no reason not to use everything else, just as it was in the bomb, and that includes the large outer aluminum sphere. What metal DO you think that's made of? Not beryllium. S B H arris 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Your intuition is starting to look very bad here. We've already established that it's the same Pu core, and that the "tamper shell" size is the same as in Fat Man (though the material is changed). And the smaller sphere we know is beryllium doesn't look like the same metal as the larger sphere, which looks very much like aluminum (what's in Fat Man). It has that same pure-white with no cast that very few metals other than Al are. Nickel is off-color as it's a bit yellow. Beryllium doesn't have that look. It's certainly not nickel-plated uranium, as a uranium hemisphere that size (something like 18 inches in diameter) would weigh at least several tons.
There's even a natural explanation for why the 8.75 U tamper is a quarter-inch thinner than the 9 inch Be reflector made to stand in its place for this experiment: the missing 1/4" is the thin boron plastic liner that was being omitted from Fat Man bombs by 1946. Probably the hole in the outer (largest) aluminum pusher was always exactly 9 inches in diameter. S B H arris 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In this thread I have twice felt the need to raise civility concerns with you [5] [6]. Nevertheless, your attacks and insinuations have continued unabated and have become increasingly personal [7]. I refuse to be bullied away from editing this page of high importance to WikiProject Medicine. — MistyMorn ( talk) 10:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Various attacks and incivility levelled at
User:MistyMorn. See: [
attacks by User:Sbharris
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It was an unfortunate situation, and I would also implicate MistyMom in the escalation on the Talk page. In any case, I've come across your contributions and comments in the past and have been quite impressed. I'm sorry to see you leave that article. I do hope you'll keep an eye on it, and if anything needs to be addressed in it, and if you don't feel comfortable getting involved there, perhaps leave a note on my Talk page or send me an email, and I will see if I can address whatever concern you have. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, do realize that much of the RfA stuff involves brownnosing or at least wooing a certain electorate, so don't expect sympathy on ANI. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As to the editors who came out of the woodwork in behalf of this one on AN/I, ye gods. As you suggest, I seem indeed to have hit some interlocking clique of some sort. For example I don't think I would ever agree to having my photo taken by Shankbone Miller [8] (see the Israeli ambassador hanging with the porn king?) but tastes clearly vary (although the ambassador did redact himself later). So I'm just going to stay as far away from this fubar, as I possibly can. S B H arris 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: [9]: Sorry, but I did. There's no mention of this idea anywhere else in the article. There is discussion of mutualism, but not about humans expressing "love by touching their hairy scalps together". The claim was made as a caption to a photo, without a citation to back it up. Thank you for providing a cite to back it up. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was very interested in your comments at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Incivility vs. IP vandalism, and I have made a response there to one of your points. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The laws of thermodynamics: Zeroth: You must play the game. First: You can't win. Second: You can't break even. Third: You can't quit the game. Cheers! :-D -- 186.32.17.47 ( talk) 05:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is _not_ an interpretation: it is a _joke_. As an interpretion it would be completely flawed. The "zeroth law" is sometimes regarded as an "afterthought". "If A and C are each in thermal equilibrium with B, A is also in equilibrium with C." I have always thought that, since it defines a basic aspect of temperature in order to properly define thermal equilibrium it was dubbed "zeroth law" because there was already a first law, and because it is not a "physical law" but a required definition. I had never thought about a reference to 0K; it sounds "amusing", although it seems to me that the third law has more to do with "0K" than the zeroth. I've also seen it as "Zeroth: There is a game". -- 201.204.200.18 ( talk) 23:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I did have this old account that I stopped using because I did not see the point. Me being the user that has being talking to you through IP addresses on thermodynamic systems. I'm usually not logged in when I browse the wiki and usually I forget or don't to sign in. I was surprised that the account still existed. I did extensive work on some martial arts systems that I am involved in and it was wiped out by some editors or something so I do not care to work for nothing. -- Crio ( talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) The article in question was on the Genbukan system. Since Shoto Tanemura Et.al. claim a connection of sorts to ancient Ninpo: an unsubstantiated claim (in as much as their connection lacks third party sources). But the system _does_ exist and is notable, even if Genbukan involves unsubstantiated claims. The article was being redone that way by different people here and it got wiped out, even though the unsubtantiated claims _were_ established as such and third party info on what Genbukan is and it being a world wide school or system of martial arts. i.e. the Bujinkan school does have it's won page and it's creator Masaaki Hatsumi does too: this is a competing school. But Genbukan and Shoto Tanemura are systematically wiped out from wiki. -- Crio ( talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
...the only way of quitting is through dead? ... heat dead? .... LOL!-- Crio ( talk) 22:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (all in jolly good fun!).
Re your interaction with the MEDRS community, I am guessing that many editors there do not even know what the word "epistemology" means. You seem to be making at least one point that is the same as that in my own mind, that standards of WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable are not sufficiently critically looked at, nor consistently applied, and therefore the inconsistency makes editing alternative medicine articles difficult, and makes a truly legitimate encyclopedia article on psychiatry and related articles difficult to write. I just wanted to let you know that if I am not commenting on good points you make in your posts over there, it is because I think that some lighter-weight thinking editors (who may have other cognitive skills you or I do not) view your comments without actually thinking about them, mainly based on their length. So my responding to your comments would only make the amount of reading they are already loathe to do more unlikely. ParkSehJik ( talk) 19:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the old problem with dictionary definitions: are they meant to be reflective of usage by the population, or are the meant to be prescriptive, to be imposed top-down by language experts, upon the common man? And is DSM more like a dictionary for psychiatrists, or more like IUPAC or ISO that set standards for names for chemists and technologists? DSM has often been called the "bible of psychiatry" and far too often, that's exactly how it's used. The protestant minority being chronically subjected to some new inquisition, or even a Thirty Years' War every time a new one is produced. S B H arris 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The "reality" of some of psychiatry's categories is somewhat related to mathematical realism's and Frege or Popper's "second world", with mathematical objects being in the third world, and the physical world being the first, borrowing our expression, "ISO reality". Further on these lines is that by defining categories mathematically, and at the same time looking for biological bases for the presumed to be real categories, epistemology and ontology of psychiatry becomes a festering sore on theories of abstract objects and of reality. That is related to a talk page section I started here Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler), (or to a music band without a Wiki page per Google) ?, where each editor seemed to weigh in with a different position, leaving any possible consensus in the dust.
My measure of "nice" for analyses is that what you wrote seems almost obvious. I like the DSM as "dictionary" idea. I have been using "cookbook" for DSM off Wiki. It is essentially a flow chart to be followed like a recipe, without critical thought, without indication as to which recipes are well and which pooorly founded in scientific evidence, without indication as to whether anything ties the recipe to an actual "disease" or just to a somewhat measurable mental category and an arbitrary deviation from a norm called "disease", and with all the bad stuff and nonsense in it well-known by and zeroed in on by forensic psychiatrists, hired to find the nonsense parts for use in getting $500/hr by whichever side calls them in partisan legal disputes, and the cases being a near certainty for anyone who is unlucky enought to live to a ripe old age, and still retain their money and freedom. There is good RS for the evolution of witch trials into forensic psychiary trials, but I am not going to get into a war trying to put it in articles. What I was surprised not to have been able to find RS on, is the bifold problem of people viewing any criticism of psychiatry as a potential attack on their drug dealer, and the semi-religious reverence so many have, especially MDs, for psychiatry, with views that any pointing to problems is like an attack on their religion. The most highly critical people I know are all big shots in psychiatry, not outside it. I had never even heard of the "antipscyhiatry movement" until I read about it in the Wiki article last week. They would probably be best served by calling themselves "the pro-EBM-psychiatry movement", unless they are actually nutcases who really are antipsychiatry for some reason. ParkSehJik ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still watching this page, but I posted a question at Talk:Rutherford_scattering#Infinite_density_at_.CE.98.3D0.3F that I thought you might be able to help with. Thanks, Λυδ α cιτγ 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)